Over the long term, there's danger that legal theories will change to further expand the rights of corporate publishers.
Intellectual Property isn't a classification defined in law, but it is an analytic classification used in law, the same way that various other subcategories of "property" are, to discuss related protections.
∀X : X ∈ { Copyright, Trademark, Patent, ... }, X ⊂ Intellectual Property ⊂ Intangible Personal Property ⊂ Personal Property ⊂ Property.
In German law, the inventor of a patent has the right to a share of the profit even if developed as an employee of the company making the profit; again, something not shared with tangible property.
I think of the relationship between "intellectual property" and "property" is more akin to "Pluto is a dwarf planet, but it's not a planet."
Yes, they are.
> Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category.
Moral rights absolutely fall under the property category.
> For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works.
Well, yes, the fact that element x is an element of set A and set A is a subset of set B, and set C is a subset of set B does not imply that x is an element of set C.
The whole point of named subsets of property (and, named subsets as analytic categories in general) is that the names come from features that are shared within the named subset that are distinct from other subsets in the broader set. So, yes, Copyright has features that are dissimilar to Patent or Trademark, IP generally has features that are dissimilar to other intangible personal property, intangible personal property has features that are dissimilar to tangible personal property, and personal property generally has features that are dissimilar to real property.
I think of a property right as something which is transferable. The two examples I gave were of rights that were not transferable. However, if "Personal Property" also includes non-transferable rights, then there's no conflict.
As a clear counter-counter-example of why my counter-example is wrong, tenancy rights are part of real property law, and may or may not include succession rights.
My comment then transforms to the (trivial) observation that intellectual property ⊄ real property.
Besides, for amusement's sake, the USPTO stands for "United States Patent and Trademark Office."
Well, when someone mentioned "fuel innovation", I assume they did not talk about trademarks, because trademarks have NOTHING to do with protecting innovation. That's what patents are for (in theory, while I don't agree with that, but that's a different topic).
Patents and Copyright stifle innovation and should be reformed or abolished. Trademark is essential consumer protection against fraud and manipulation and is extremely important to keep, although it needs to be fixed not to require prohibitive costs to defend one's trademark.
---
* Public notice of your claim of ownership of the mark;
* A legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration;
* The ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
* The use of the U.S. registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries;
* The ability to record the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods;
* The right to use the federal registration symbol ®; and Listing in the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s online databases.
---
US trademarks are only good for the line of business I'm in. If I were to publish a software product called Mustang, for example, Ford wouldn't be able to sue me for copyright infringement. My product shares a trademark with one of theirs, but it's in a different enough market that the two trademarks don't conflict with each other.
It sounds like Groupon's proposed product is point of sale hardware. That's different enough from a desktop window manager that Groupon can quite possibly get a lawyer to convince a jury that they're different businesses. Therefore GNOME Foundation has to pay a lawyer to stand up and argue the other side of the case.
Mostly so that you can get (triple) damages and lawyer fees from the infringer in case you win the lawsuit.